Defendant Jeffrey T. Siler was convicted of felony murder during an attempted especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he raised two primary issues: the denial of his motion to suppress his confession and the exclusion of expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment without addressing the sufficiency of the evidence since the defendant did not challenge it.
The facts revealed that on February 19, 1998, Siler and another minor, Lavon Davis, planned to rob fifty-six-year-old Tommy Haworth. After confronting the victim and demanding money, Siler accidentally discharged a pistol, resulting in Haworth’s death. Evidence included a shell casing disposed of by the defendant and his fingerprints found at the crime scene.
At trial, Siler pleaded guilty to attempted especially aggravated robbery, and the jury convicted him of felony murder. Regarding the confession, Siler argued that his aunt, the legal custodian, should have been present during interrogation instead of his mother. However, the court determined it could not consider this suppression issue.
The absence of a suppression hearing transcript in the record is noted, emphasizing the accused's responsibility to provide a complete record for appellate review, as per Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b). The appellant's failure to include this transcript results in waiving the issue, supported by State v. Banes.
Regarding expert testimony, the trial court ruled that Dr. Michael Buckner, a psychologist, could not testify about the defendant's intent for felony murder since the defendant's guilty plea to attempted especially aggravated robbery established the requisite intent. Although the trial court allowed Dr. Buckner to testify on the "knowing" aspect of second degree murder, defense counsel ultimately decided not to call him, and no offer of proof regarding Dr. Buckner’s testimony was made. An appellate court cannot find error in the exclusion of evidence without such an offer, leading to the waiver of this issue. The court further clarifies that felony murder only requires intent to commit the underlying felony, negating the relevance of Dr. Buckner’s testimony to the "reckless" mens rea. The trial court did not prevent expert testimony concerning the "knowing" element; rather, the decision not to call Dr. Buckner was made by the defense. Consequently, the appeal is deemed without merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
